By just saying so? No, you're not forcing it on anyone. But if you were to lobby for a law to this effect, then yes, you would be forcing your 'complete morality system' on people, which would be wrong.

Now IF the Patriarch meant what he certainly SEEMS to have meant...well someone claiming to be a representative of Christ and leader of his flock advocating acceptance of such a heinous crime...Put two and two together.

I have yet to see any quote attributed to the Patriarch claiming that abortion is not sinful, and not a grave decision. The quote provided doesn't prove to me that he is "pro-choice" at all (and maybe that's just my bias affecting my judgment - who knows?).

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I must say, it's an inspiring thing to see your discipline in sticking to your stated debate techniques! Of course, the fact you like to humiliate people casts a shadow that keeps me from being a true fan. But maybe I'll come around.

I'm sorry, I guess I could work on some dissertation why I think killing, then ripping apart a fetus to be sucked out of its mother needs logic to explain why I think it's not a good thing. But since I don't need that to be convinced it's a horrible thing that shouldn't be allowed except under the most extreme circumstances, and since you value your personal freedom so much at the expense of innocent life, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

I would love to see your paradise of accepting abortion, accepting drug use, accepting prostitution, etc. after a few years. Probably would look like a dead addict after their heroin overdose.

I was just pointing out the irony of one who claims to advocate the ideal of 'freedom or death' advocating the usurpation of liberty because of a religious code. And yes, you only mentioned religion once as your reasoning for this position, but that's also the only time you actually gave a reason. The rest of the time you were busy talking about statistics on rape or health, which really doesn't matter to me, if our primary concern is liberty then it is those abortions that are not from forced circumstances that must, first and foremost, be defended. And by creating an accepting culture in those instances, those who have abortions because of the necessity of their situation will find it all that much easier.

(I read a paper from some Scandinavian country (I want to say Sweeden) a while back while researching for a pastoral theology class which established a pretty clear relationship between psychological problems associated with abortion and the social situation and philosophy (read: religion and religiousness) of the woman, which convinced me that the most important thing to do is to create a culture of acceptance for abortion...the professor just 'loved' my paper )

The laws and social norms you cite about not hurting or robbing or whatever on the streets can just as easily be ascribed to social contract rather than an religious or moral system's influence. The former probably has had more impact on the latter, for that matter.

What is a 'social contract'?

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

Live Free or Die relates to the things we allow to enslave us and keep us from living fulfilling lives. The people I meet everyday aren't enslaved because our government limits personal freedom, they are enslaved because of their own passions and vices.

Freedom to me has nothing to do with government. I've met men in prison who were the most free souls you'd ever meet. Freedom is having enough control over your own passions and vices to live a life of true meaning and purpose.

How a person live speaks way more about freedom than what they say or type.

Here's another angle for your consideration GiC. If you were walking alone at night and saw a group of youth rapidly approaching your direction would you feel better knowing that they were law-abiding Christians on their way to a Bible study? Or, would you be thinking, "Gee, I hope these gents are like me and don't accept others' forced morality on me in the form of laws. Afterall, just because one group of people say it's not OK to go out and hurt others doesn't mean that we ALL have to believe that way."? Don't bother to launch into a litany of 'freedoms' and 'suppressions' tirade because we all know the answer; you would be greatful that they followed the law- laws, BTW, that stemmed from someone's 'morality system'. Ofcoarse, the first thing you would say in this situation is, "Feet, don't fail me now!" which would prove my point.

So, while we as Christians cannot legislate others into becomming Christians, we absolutely must legally do what we can to end the majority of abortions.

I'd feel better after I reached down and griped the handle of my M1911, rather than hoping that they decided to follow the law that evening. Of course, this is a fundamentally different situation, laws against assault are necessary to maintain social order and prevent a complete descent into anarchy; a society, to remain free, should stay on the verge of anarchy without ever entering into it, the state should always face that threat and only pass the laws needed to prevent the ultimate descent. Laws against abortion are not necessary to maintain a reasonable degree of social order, as the past few decades have demonstrate, as such they are inherently unjust.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Live Free or Die relates to the things we allow to enslave us and keep us from living fulfilling lives. The people I meet everyday aren't enslaved because our government limits personal freedom, they are enslaved because of their own passions and vices.

Freedom to me has nothing to do with government. I've met men in prison who were the most free souls you'd ever meet. Freedom is having enough control over your own passions and vices to live a life of true meaning and purpose.

How a person live speaks way more about freedom than what they say or type.

Ah, and I thought you were quoting Gen. Stark...so much for the ideals of the revolution.

« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 03:57:24 PM by greekischristian »

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I must say, it's an inspiring thing to see your discipline in sticking to your stated debate techniques! Of course, the fact you like to humiliate people casts a shadow that keeps me from being a true fan. But maybe I'll come around.

Oh, everyone does in time.

Quote

I'm sorry, I guess I could work on some dissertation why I think killing, then ripping apart a fetus to be sucked out of its mother needs logic to explain why I think it's not a good thing.

Not that I'm willing to concede that a fetus is alive, since it is incapable of surviving on its own; however, for the sake of argument: I believe it was you who already said you'd put a bullet into the head of someone who invades your house against your will, and I commend you for that. But, why would you not same afford the same courtesy to someone who invaded your body against your will?

Quote

But since I don't need that to be convinced it's a horrible thing that shouldn't be allowed except under the most extreme circumstances, and since you value your personal freedom so much at the expense of innocent life, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

Probably not...'Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.'

Quote

I would love to see your paradise of accepting abortion, accepting drug use, accepting prostitution, etc. after a few years. Probably would look like a dead addict after their heroin overdose.

Yeah, a country that embraces those things might end up as primitive as the Netherlands.

Of course my utopia would be an even better place since it wouldn't suffer from the difficulties associated with overpopulation.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

A fetus is an invader? Analogous to a criminal entering my house? Hold a fetus in your hand young enough to be aborted. I have. Then think about putting a bullet in its head. Or ripping it's limbs apart with forceps. Or puncturing its skull. We aren't talking theory, or some hypothetical situation of someone entering my house. I'm not being "emotional". I'm talking about something real that happens everyday. We are talking about a horrible ending everyday for innocent "developing" life(like that better) for the sake of someone's convenience over 90% of the time.

Who said primitive and who said how long it would take? And as far as I know the Netherlands haven't embraced hard drugs, etc. and large scale drug production, distribution, etc. is prosecuted heavily as it has become something of a European center for the production/distribution of hard drugs(some paradise). When the cycle of acceptance is fully implemented in the glorious Netherlands and you can buy and shoot heroin in your hashish shop, then we can judge the outcome.

I'm happy to say my home has contributed 5 young heathens to world overpopulation and a sixth is probably on the way. And my home is a glorious place!

Not that I'm willing to concede that a fetus is alive, since it is incapable of surviving on its own; however, for the sake of argument: I believe it was you who already said you'd put a bullet into the head of someone who invades your house against your will, and I commend you for that. But, why would you not same afford the same courtesy to someone who invaded your body against your will?

Probably not...'Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.'

Yeah, a country that embraces those things might end up as primitive as the Netherlands.

Of course my utopia would be an even better place since it wouldn't suffer from the difficulties associated with overpopulation.

I'd feel better after I reached down and griped the handle of my M1911, rather than hoping that they decided to follow the law that evening. Of course, this is a fundamentally different situation, laws against assault are necessary to maintain social order and prevent a complete descent into anarchy; a society, to remain free, should stay on the verge of anarchy without ever entering into it, the state should always face that threat and only pass the laws needed to prevent the ultimate descent. Laws against abortion are not necessary to maintain a reasonable degree of social order, as the past few decades have demonstrate, as such they are inherently unjust.

Abortion involves the killing of a human innocent of any actual (though of course not Original Sin). Therefore it could well be argued that it is the greatest of all forms of the greatest sin which is killing somebody made in the Image of God (though of course the killing of the All Pure Lord Jesus Christ was much, much worse). Now IF the Patriarch meant what he certainly SEEMS to have meant...well someone claiming to be a representative of Christ and leader of his flock advocating acceptance of such a heinous crime...Put two and two together.

Therefore though God's judgement remains His I will have to agree with Father Ambrose on this one.

Theophan.

Theophan.

God,

Christianity is a strange religion indeed. Your holy texts say that only you, God, can judge hearts and souls and yet God apparently posts on this forum as both GOCtheophan AND Irish Hermit?

Who said primitive and who said how long it would take? And as far as I know the Netherlands haven't embraced hard drugs, etc. and large scale drug production, distribution, etc. is prosecuted heavily as it has become a European center for the production of hard drugs(some paradise). When the cycle of acceptance it fully implemented in the glorious Netherlands and you can buy heroin in yor hashish shop, then we can judge the outcome.

There you go again. Accusing people who disagree with you of vices when they take a libertarian position on a social issue. "you can buy heroin in yor hashish shop" I've never consumed any illegal drugs, period. I've never had any involvement with an abortion. If statistics are any guide, my hunch is the same isn't true of all of the people most vocal about the right to life in this thread. And you are also ignoring the benefits of dramatically reduced rates of violent crime in the Netherlands relative to the US; if you don't send people to prison for long sentences for minor drug crimes gang membership decreases, etc.

I accused no one on this board, nor implied anyone on this board consumes heroin or any other illegal drug. Nor implied that people who disagree with me take drugs. I said when/if the Netherlands allow a truly "free" society and hard drugs are freely available,i.e. heroin in hash shops, then lets fully judge their social experiment.

Christianity is a strange religion indeed. Your holy texts say that only you, God, can judge hearts and souls and yet God apparently posts on this forum as both GOCtheophan AND Irish Hermit?

There you go again. Accusing people who disagree with you of vices when they take a libertarian position on a social issue. "you can buy heroin in yor hashish shop" I've never consumed any illegal drugs, period. I've never had any involvement with an abortion. If statistics are any guide, my hunch is the same isn't true of all of the people most vocal about the right to life in this thread. And you are also ignoring the benefits of dramatically reduced rates of violent crime in the Netherlands relative to the US; if you don't send people to prison for long sentences for minor drug crimes gang membership decreases, etc.

I accused no one on this board, nor implied anyone on this board consumes heroin or any other illegal drug. Nor implied that people who disagree with me take drugs. I said when/if the Netherlands allow a truly "free" society and hard drugs are freely available,i.e. heroin in hash shops, then lets fully judge their social experiment.

You used the second person and not the third person impersonal. So as you wrote your post, you did in fact accuse someone on this board.

I can get the vast majority of the rounds within about six or seven inches of the bullseye and could certainly hit a human sized target a few times before I emptied it. Not real impressive I know, one can always use more time at the shooting range, but it's good enough to make me feel safe when I have it on me.

Quote

What technique do you use?

Couldn't tell you that, just shooting the way I was always taught to shoot. I don't have any professional training, I was just born with a gun in my hand.

Quote

Is your M1911 modified?

Nope, Kimber Tactical II, stock.

Quote

What is your trigger pressure?

As it's stock I believe it comes with around a 4 1/2 pound trigger pressure, that's one modification I might think about at some point, a pound lower trigger pressure would improve my accuracy out beyond about 25 yards.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

To use the example you gave, the youths decide not to attack GiC while he is walking down the road not simply because he is likely armed and dangerous, nor because they have moral qualms about murder (whether they do or not is irrelevant) but because as members of societies they have mutually agreed to give up certain rights / freedoms for greater social order.

Kimber Tactical II is a nice weapon. If you are really hitting that close to a bullseye at 50 yards you are doing good, close to expert territory. Good job.

The best way to increase accuracy and accuracy in a combat situation is to work on controlling your breathing and trigger pressure. Even trained shooters can have a hard time hitting a man sized target even 10 yards away in a combat situation when you are breathing hard and your adreniline is pumping.

I can get the vast majority of the rounds within about six or seven inches of the bullseye and could certainly hit a human sized target a few times before I emptied it. Not real impressive I know, one can always use more time at the shooting range, but it's good enough to make me feel safe when I have it on me.

Couldn't tell you that, just shooting the way I was always taught to shoot. I don't have any professional training, I was just born with a gun in my hand.

Nope, Kimber Tactical II, stock.

As it's stock I believe it comes with around a 4 1/2 pound trigger pressure, that's one modification I might think about at some point, a pound lower trigger pressure would improve my accuracy out beyond about 25 yards.

Kimber Tactical II is a nice weapon. If you are really hitting that close to a bullseye at 50 yards you are doing good, close to expert territory. Good job.

Well, this is shooting at a leisurely pace, if I try to get through 8 rounds in a quarter of a minute or something my accuracy suffers considerably, especially at that range. To have a half way decent grouping I need to take a few seconds between each shot, so I don't know that my shooting would hold up to the 'rapid fire' requirement that I understand is part of the qualification process.

But in any case, I was a pretty good shot in high school, but I went away to college and would only shoot a few times a year during the summer over the past 6 years. When I got back to the range I noticed my skill had dropped considerably, I hit a deer at about 450 this year, but my rifle was shooting to the right and I failed to compensate enough for the distance so I ened up with a gut shot (the problem with getting a new rifle the day before you leave to Colorado to go hunting), tracked him for about a mile then lost the blood trail. I bought a couple more guns (270 WSM and the Kimber) and try to make time to shoot regularly (well, not the short mag at $3 a pop) now that I'm in a situation where I can again, but it's often difficult to make the time (especially this time of year since the dirt road going out there is half mud and half creek); but once I'm out there I have a great time.

Quote

The best way to increase accuracy and accuracy in a combat situation is to work on controlling your breathing and trigger pressure. Even trained shooters can have a hard time hitting a man sized target even 10 yards away in a combat situation when you are breathing hard and your adreniline is pumping.

I have no idea how I'd perform in a combat situation, never had the opportunity to do so and, quite frankly, hope I never have to be in that situation. I'm sure the first time would be difficult for anyone, regardless of their marksmanship skill. I'm hoping I can stick to fury animals and paper targets, but if I find myself in a situation where I need to defend myself I'll do what I can.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

But in any case, I was a pretty good shot in high school, but I went away to college and would only shoot a few times a year during the summer over the past 6 years. When I got back to the range I noticed my skill had dropped considerably, I hit a deer at about 450 this year, but my rifle was shooting to the right and I failed to compensate enough for the distance so I ened up with a gut shot (the problem with getting a new rifle the day before you leave to Colorado to go hunting), tracked him for about a mile then lost the blood trail. I bought a couple more guns (270 WSM and the Kimber) and try to make time to shoot regularly (well, not the short mag at $3 a pop) now that I'm in a situation where I can again, but it's often difficult to make the time (especially this time of year since the dirt road going out there is half mud and half creek); but once I'm out there I have a great time.

I have no idea how I'd perform in a combat situation, never had the opportunity to do so and, quite frankly, hope I never have to be in that situation. I'm sure the first time would be difficult for anyone, regardless of their marksmanship skill. I'm hoping I can stick to fury animals and paper targets, but if I find myself in a situation where I need to defend myself I'll do what I can.

450 yards? Nothing like hunting stories! I should make you a ghillie suit and call you Carlos.

At 450 yards wind drift is the hardest thing to compensate for. 270 WSM is a good round for distant shots though.

LOL, wasn't his famous shot about 2500 yards? 450 isn't that far and I had a rest (the hood of a pick-up ), if I'm not mistake isn't military rifle qualification off-hand at 100, kneeling at 300, and prone at 500? And that's without a scope.

« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 11:40:06 PM by greekischristian »

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

It is extremely common in this evil world and outside of the restoration of a Christian order under an Orthodox Tsar will become more and more so.

From the interaction of the Church with the imperial structures of the Byzantine Empire developed the concept of a symphony between the secular authority of the Empire and the spiritual authority of the Church--i.e., the doctrine of Orthodox Christian Empire. (Patriarch Anthony IV of Constantinople once said, "It is not possible for Christians to have a church and not to have an empire.") This is part of the Byzantine world view that the Russian church received from those missionaries who brought the faith to her people. Many will say, however, that this concept of Orthodox Christian Empire and the glorification of the Orthodox Tsar blinded the Russian Church to the fact that the Romanov Tsars (heirs of Tsar Peter the Great) were anything but Orthodox and sought to use the Church to advance their imperial ends, hence the Synod with an imperially appointed layman at its head to make the Church little more than the spiritual arm of the Tsar's rule over his subjects. This Russo-Byzantine ideal of Orthodox Christian Empire died a cataclysmic and final death in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution.

I have yet to see any quote attributed to the Patriarch claiming that abortion is not sinful, and not a grave decision. The quote provided doesn't prove to me that he is "pro-choice" at all (and maybe that's just my bias affecting my judgment - who knows?).

One can hold to the traditional Orthodox belief that abortion is fundamentally murder and can therefore, as a spiritual leader in the Church, not condone abortion. But does this mean that one must strive to establish laws forbidding abortion and counsel his flock to do the same? I'm actually not so sure of that. Regardless of the righteousness of the goal, is it proper for the Church to be an active agent for legislative change? In being such, would the Church need to compromise her mission to be a hospital for dying souls and to preach the Gospel of salvation via the Ark of Salvation, the Holy Church of Christ? Does our Orthodox Christian pursuit of a legislative agenda, even if that be the state prohibition of abortion, require us to get too involved in the arena of secular politics?

I personally believe, living as I do in a representative democracy which places on me the responsibility to make my Christian voice heard via the ballot box, that I am called to use my voting rights to help bring about an end to the holocaust of abortion. I recognize this, however, within my understanding of my role as an individual Orthodox Christian within my society, so I don't push this as an official position of the Church. Therefore, I don't see myself in any position to judge any bishop or patriarch of the Church who counsels his flock to not pursue anti-abortion legislation. The question I see His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew answering (in the negative) is this: "Does our Church's traditional condemnation of abortion require us today to seek legislation banning the practice?" I may disagree with his conclusion, but I'm not willing to say that he doesn't base his reasoning on Orthodox premises.

LOL, wasn't his famous shot about 2500 yards? 450 isn't that far and I had a rest (the hood of a pick-up ), if I'm not mistake isn't military rifle qualification off-hand at 100, kneeling at 300, and prone at 500? And that's without a scope.

Guys, I know you like to talk about guns and target shooting, but could you please take it to another thread so we can keep this one on topic? Thank you.

From the interaction of the Church with the imperial structures of the Byzantine Empire developed the concept of a symphony between the secular authority of the Empire and the spiritual authority of the Church--i.e., the doctrine of Orthodox Christian Empire. (Patriarch Anthony IV of Constantinople once said, "It is not possible for Christians to have a church and not to have an empire.") This is part of the Byzantine world view that the Russian church received from those missionaries who brought the faith to her people. Many will say, however, that this concept of Orthodox Christian Empire and the glorification of the Orthodox Tsar blinded the Russian Church to the fact that the Romanov Tsars (heirs of Tsar Peter the Great) were anything but Orthodox and sought to use the Church to advance their imperial ends, hence the Synod with an imperially appointed layman at its head to make the Church little more than the spiritual arm of the Tsar's rule over his subjects. This Russo-Byzantine ideal of Orthodox Christian Empire died a cataclysmic and final death in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution.

The Church - State relationship in imperial Russia outside of European Russia was much different than the romanticized version that is so popular on the internet. The Imperial authorities deemed it would be more in their interests to promote Buddhism and Islam in Siberia and Russia to the point that there were some strong restrictions on Orthodox missionary work, and some peoples like some Kyrgyz and Kazakh groups were actually islamified under Tsarist aegis as were many Yakuts brought into Buddhism (with some degree of violence). Some of this is told in Leskov's On the Edge of the World. As more and more Mongols and Buryats turned to the Russian Empire for protection against the Chinese (and there were even some Tibetans who wanted to swap British backing for Russian backing), Russia adopted a very pro-buddhist policy (for instance, you can still see today a Buryat temple and a very beautiful Mosque in St. Petersburg - something definitely lacking in London, Paris or Berlin of that time!) and some Mongol / Buryat buddhists considered the Romanovs to be a line of reincarnations of one of their gods. My point in this ramble is that religious policy wasn't really driven by ideology during imperial Russia, but rather on political concerns. Often, and especially in European Russia, this worked to benefit the Orthodox, but in other cases it was to their disadvantage.

It's sad that the Ecumenical Patriarch appears to be more concerned about the environment than the fate of the millions of unborn children.

Let's pray that the Theotokos guide his All-Holiness.

I think the operative word here is "appears". And it would appear to me that the Ecumenical Patriarch needs some 'media sensitivity' training in that his words will be scrutinized by those who hate the Church and/or those who dislike the Ecumenical Patriarchate no matter who occupies the throne.I'm certain that had he stated that the Church has canons condemning abortion and severe penalties for those who acquire one or aid and abet one, that that would never appear in print.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 08:03:43 AM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I think the operative word here is "appears". And it would appear to me that the Ecumenical Patriarch needs some 'media sensitivity' training in that his words will be scrutinized by those who hate the Church and/or those who dislike the Ecumenical Patriarchate no matter who occupies the throne.

It's sad that the Ecumenical Patriarch appears to be more concerned about the environment than the fate of the millions of unborn children.

Let's pray that the Theotokos guide his All-Holiness.

Considering that much of his flock lives on low lying coastal areas and islands, some concern for the environment is warranted, I'd think.

For all this talk of the EP supporting abortion, does anyone know of even a single priest who has ever counseled someone to obtain an abortion? I'd honestly be shocked if someone has. Perhaps that would be a but more indicative than microanalysing one particular statement of the Patriarch. Or maybe GOCTheophan is right, it doesn't matter anyway since women wear trousers in our churches.

I know nothing about the Ecumenical Patriarch, but I do have an observation. Why would a mother whose life is in danger during birth be given a penance if she aborts her child? This is especially a concern if she has other young children at home to think about. A C-section might very well solve this dilemma, but if the mother is acting in a justified way, should she not also be considered a saint if she puts family first before the unborn child? I would think that a mother's primary responsibility is the family she has here and now...

LiveFreeorDie, it's even worse when some of these babies are accidently born alive during abortion, and the doctors and nurses leave them in the waste buckets to die! I've read stories from former abortion providers, who have participated in this and feel absolutely terrible that they did.

GIC! You actually believe a fetus is not alive, simply because it cannot survive on its own outside the womb?? And I was just starting to fall in love with you! By your logic, any human infant, born under normal circumstances, cannot be considered "alive" because they cannot survive on their own. Do you believe an unborn child has any rights, or are they graciously considerable if they happen to be "wanted"?Too bad God Himself can't post on this forum, especially after you identified an unborn fetus as a potential home invader...I know we're not rabbits, G, but we're also not beasts.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 07:22:27 PM by Myrrh23 »

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

GIC! You actually believe a fetus is not alive, simply because it cannot survive on its own outside the womb?? And I was just starting to fall in love with you! By your logic, any human infant, born under normal circumstances, cannot be considered "alive" because they cannot survive on their own. Do you believe an unborn child has any rights, or are they graciously considerable if they happen to be "wanted"?Too bad God Himself can't post on this forum, especially after you identified an unborn fetus as a potential home invader...I know we're not rabbits, G, but we're also not beasts.

Actually, my argument for it not being human relates not so much to survivability, but rather to brain development. (The argument I put forth concerning survivability is that even if it has a right to life, the mother also has a right to remove it from her body that transcends its right to life, for the same (but even stronger) reason that one's right to remove someone from their home transcends the person's right to life...whether or not the fetus is human is moot in this argument.) At some point during gestation the fetus may acquire the computational potential of a human being, but certainly not during the first trimester; and, thus, I don't believe it can be regarded as human at that time.

Sorry to disappoint, but I have this tendency to defend my libertarian ideals even when it gets me in trouble.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I understand your point, yet one must put forth the question of when a human body acquires a soul. Some say at the moment of conception, while others argue a soul is present when there is brain and brain stem activity. If there is no brain activity, as was the case of Terri Schiavo, "aint no one home". Btw, I personally agreed that Schiavo was looooong gone.What if a woman decides a month before birth that she no longer wants the child? Do you believe she has the right to abort the child, even if it is healthy and viable, with healthy brain activity? I remember reading a news article about a woman who was in the middle of giving birth--at the end of nine months-- to twins. She was told she had to have a C-section in order to safely remove both babies, and this woman then decided to terminate one of the babies because she didn't want another C-section scar. Would you have supported this woman's decision to terminate so close to birth? Not trying to burn you at the stake--just getting ahold of your beliefs.When do you personally believe a woman should not be allowed to abort her baby?

And, of course, I'm gonna ask the forbidden question: do you have any kids? Hey, "having a baby changes everything"...

Myrrh23

« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 10:47:35 PM by Myrrh23 »

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

I understand your point, yet one must put forth the question of when a human body acquires a soul. Some say at the moment of conception, while others argue a soul is present when there is brain and brain stem activity. If there is no brain activity, as was the case of Terri Schiavo, "aint no one home". Btw, I personally agreed that Schiavo was looooong gone.

I don't believe this issue should be given any consideration from the perspective of law since there is no objective way of determining the answer to this question. Even our own theological tradition is unclear on this, some insist it's at conception, others have said in the past that it's 40 days after birth when the Churching takes place. But even if our theological tradition did directly address the issue, we have no right to codify a religious belief as law and force it on others.

Quote

What if a woman decides a month before birth that she no longer wants the child? Do you believe she has the right to abort the child, even if it is healthy and viable, with healthy brain activity?

I think that in this instance it would be wonderful if we could set up a means system where labour is induced and the child is cared for the best our medical technology allows and is given up for adoption when appropriate...provided such a system does not present undue difficulty to the woman. However, in the end, her right to remove the fetus from her body trumps the fetus' right to life, even if I would regard it as human at this point (which was the point of the whole 'home invaders' analogy I've been villainized for ).

Quote

I remember reading a news article about a woman who was in the middle of giving birth--at the end of nine months-- to twins. She was told she had to have a C-section in order to safely remove both babies, and this woman then decided to terminate one of the babies because she didn't want another C-section scar. Would you have supported this woman's decision to terminate so close to birth? Not trying to burn you at the stake--just getting ahold of your beliefs.

I find this decision to be very selfish and unfortunate on her part and certainly disagree with it on a moral level. However, with that said, I do not believe that the government has a right to force her to undergo a medical procedure, against her will, even in this case. As I said before, one's right to life ends when it becomes dependent on the abrogation of another's fundamental personal liberties. So while I do not support her decision, per se, I do support her right to make this decision.

Quote

When do you personally believe a woman should not be allowed to abort her baby?

I do not believe that there is any time, under any conditions, when the state has the right to make this determination for a woman.

Quote

And, of course, I'm gonna ask the forbidden question: do you have any kids? Hey, "having a baby changes everything"...

Nope, not even close. But considering that 60 percent of women who have an abortion already have at least one child, I don't know how significant this really is.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

From the interaction of the Church with the imperial structures of the Byzantine Empire developed the concept of a symphony between the secular authority of the Empire and the spiritual authority of the Church--i.e., the doctrine of Orthodox Christian Empire. (Patriarch Anthony IV of Constantinople once said, "It is not possible for Christians to have a church and not to have an empire.") This is part of the Byzantine world view that the Russian church received from those missionaries who brought the faith to her people. Many will say, however, that this concept of Orthodox Christian Empire and the glorification of the Orthodox Tsar blinded the Russian Church to the fact that the Romanov Tsars (heirs of Tsar Peter the Great) were anything but Orthodox and sought to use the Church to advance their imperial ends, hence the Synod with an imperially appointed layman at its head to make the Church little more than the spiritual arm of the Tsar's rule over his subjects. This Russo-Byzantine ideal of Orthodox Christian Empire died a cataclysmic and final death in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution.

I agree, essentially... but there were diffrences between different Romanovs. Peter I (the "Great") was definitely not Orthodox. Catherine II (also the "Great") was hardly Orthodox, too; superficially, she was very pious, atteded Divine Liturgies, had her confessor-priest, etc., but her policies were pretty much anti-Church. Her son Paul I was very different - even though he had a terrible temper and was generally feared, he had some intrinsic loyalty to the Church teachings. Alexander I was, apparently, very influenced by his Roman Catholic friends (Polish princes), and during his reign, Freemasonry flourished all over the Empire. Nicholas I was definitely Orthodox. Alexander II (the "Liberator," the Tsar who freed serfs) was an extremely nice, kind, generous, wonderfully educated man, but his relationships with the Church were very difficult because of his extra-marital affairs and then his "morganatic" secular marriage with his former mistress. Alexander III was Orthodox. Nicholas II was, of course, Orthodox.